Peace and conflict in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) face a major transfiguration that is reshuffling the region’s place in the world`s geopolitical landscape. This is mainly a result of the actions and policies triggered by the United States that have tensed LAC`s strategic insertion in a ruptured international order. Though resulting from the security policy shifts imposed unilaterally by the Trump 2.0, it is important to acknowledge that these moves have been facilitated by two developments: the continuous retraction in different areas of LACs intra-regional coordination, and the growing support to the White House decisions coming from several bed-fellow governments in the region. Such has been the case of Argentina, Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, Guyana, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
The long persisting idea that LAC represented an area of strategic irrelevance has been left behind by the present US administration. The changing tides in LACs strategic reality was laid out by the contents of US National Security Strategy (NSS), made public in November 2025. Detailed first in 1987, the NSS always gave peripheral attention to LAC. This area was hardly mentioned, and even completely ignored, by some of previous Administrations. Surprisingly, the region is now a major piece in the chessboard of US security interests and has assumed core part for the restoration of American power. Such game-change was underscored by the 2026 National Defense Strategy, as Homeland Security and the protection of US interests throughout the Western Hemisphere are perceived as one and the same priority.
Since the beginning of Trumps second administration the focus on the rivalry with China had led to a broad securitization of US foreign policy priorities towards LAC that translated into the weaponization of international economic policies, including foreign trade, finance and debt management, the access to advanced technologies, and strategic resources. A MAGA label has been stamped on the Monroe Doctrine (MD)- conceived back in 1823 to defend the idea that the Western Hemisphere ought to be an exclusive area for the projection of United States interests. This revival has translated into the “Donroe” Doctrine (DD), the nickname that defines Trumps foreign policy approach to Hemispheric matters and actions. Accordingly, the current White House is determined to roll back “non-Hemispheric competitors” and assure American access to widespread resources pinpointed as valuable to US strategic needs. In fact, access and appropriation have become synonyms in the US official power dialect.
From a strategic standpoint, a central aspect of this turn has been the determination to dramatically increase US military presence in the region by way of armament sales, intelligence presence and joint exercises with military and police forces of allied governments. Recent steps in such direction were taken with Paraguay, Argentina and Panama. At the same time, partnerships have been stimulated with the business sector “to improve energy infrastructure, invest in critical mineral access, and harden existing and future cyber communications networks that take full advantage of American encryption and security potential” (NSS,:18-19). The militarized approach that dictates US narrative and nowadays sustains US Hemispheric policies involves broad geo-economic and strategic aspirations that include many in a same landscape: Canada and Greenland, in the North, the Caribbean, Central and South America in the South. Hence, Trump 2.0 has given a clear signal of its intention of combining the revival of classical sphere of influence approach with dangerous and unpredictable gunboat diplomatic modus operandi. Hence, Trump 2.0 has given a clear signal of its intention to combine the revival of the classical sphere of influence approach with dangerous and unpredictable gunboat diplomatic modus operandi.
Moving forward with no hesitation
US-LAC relations have been submitted to a process of hyper-securitization based upon an exacerbated notion of threat that justifies the use of force and limits to a minimum finding genuine areas of common interests and dialogue. Hyper-securitization has implied the transformation of this region into a laboratory of control particularly functional to enhance the imperial impulses coming from the White House. This has been the dominating line of action when dealing with the issues of migration control, border security, the fight against organized crime and drug trafficking- commonly addressed as “narco-terrorism”. This last topic intertwines with MAGA`s anti-terrorist crusade that normalizes the use of violent/ drastic methods of elimination. After being out of the radar during the US War on terror initiated in 2001, LAC is now pointed out as the most threatening region to the US due to its 24 criminal groups and cartels – designated by the State Department as menacing terrorist organizations that threaten the United State safety and jeopardize the life of millions of Americans at home. Consequently, massive immigration deportation and imprisonment, targeted mainly at the Latino community, has installed a wave of repression and unjustified violence all over the United States.
All through 2025, the escalation of bullying-type diplomatic attitudes towards LAC, followed by coercive wording, gave way to a repertoire of acts of aggression beyond US borders that gave life to the imperialistic intentions professed by President Trump. These actions were hastily implemented by his most loyal entourage, with special mention to State Secretary (and Strategic Advisor) Marco Rubio — the outstanding interpreter of the bosses’ orders. Categorical obedience dispensed inter-bureaucratic decision-making and/or domestic, partisan negotiations. Vice-President D.J. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have stood-by to assure applause and reinforce MAGA reasoning to back-up the president’s decisions. The militarization of US foreign policy towards the region goes hand in hand with the determination to strengthen the defense capabilities and presence worldwide. The US President recently announced its intention to reach overall a US $1.5 defense budget, that implies an increase by almost 60% by 2027 fiscal year. US defense bureaucratic reform was enforced, with special mention to the United States Army Western Hemisphere Command, putting in extra teeth and operational capabilities addressed at the region, alongside the US Southern Command.
During the last 3-4 months of 2025, the deployment in the Southern part of the Caribbean of several warships — that includes the largest Aircraft Carrier, Gerald Ford, a nuclear-powered submarine, a net of spies, plus 15000 U.S. troops — were combined with 29 attacks on Venezuelan small boats accused of transporting drugs destined to the US. Besides, the military occupation of oil tankers in the Caribbean Sea and elsewhere became the method employed by the White House to assure the embargo/blockade of all Venezuelan oil transactions. Trump’s government sustains these actions defend the US prerogative of regaining Venezuelan oil and gas resources, and the need to protect the Americans from Venezuelan narco-terrorist groups.
In the sequence of events, the most important blow took place on January 3, when a US military attack against Venezuela that led to the capture of President Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, explained as a law enforcement action in response to a Manhattan federal court pledge. Labeled as “Operation Southern Spear”, the operation involved the bombardment of infrastructure in the northern part of the country, the suppression of local air defense, and approximately 90 casualties. Each course of action undertaken by the US against Venezuela represents a flagrant violation of international law and certainly an outrageous disregard to the principle of sovereignty in world affairs.
Ad hoc day-after developments have opened a window of uncertainties that lead to interrogations, such as: i) what will be the political and economic future of Venezuela?; ii) what are the short and medium run implications of Trump`s actions for LAC and the Northern territories that are part Western Hemisphere—particularly Canada and Greenland?; iii) which are the consequences of US actions in Venezuela for the reconfiguration of world power distribution?; iv) are there chances of response in LAC that reflects collective resilience and echoes intra-regional agency, holding back the advancement of Trump`s imperialistic actions?
The challenges ahead
In the past, different interpretations of this region`s irrelevant presence in the international geopolitical landscape have contributed to the understanding of LACs security uniqueness. This region stood out for its history of minor inter-state conflicts during the 20th century, and hardly participated in post-Cold War UN Security Council interventionism. Latin America and the Caribbean, especially South America, was acknowledged as a no-war zone (for some, synonymous to peace zone) thanks to its geographic distance from hot conflict zones, the stabilizing effect of US hegemonic preeminence, the international inconsequence of intra-regional disputes, the shared democratic values articulated with commitments to international law, and the strong support to non-proliferation, multilateralism and peace-oriented foreign policies of the majority of its countries. These attributes are inevitably shaken by the turmoil imposed by present Trump 2.0 approaches that opt for unilateral domination instead of inter-American hegemonic strategies. Besides, they overlap with the disarticulation of post-cold war regional initiatives, particularly affected by the intra-regional ideological polarization fueled by stimulated extreme-right leadership.
Within this context, regional governance regions committed to peace, democracy and international cooperation face enormous challenges in LAC. Brazil and Mexico, the most important regional powers, have been assertive regarding their peace-oriented foreign policies, showing resilience and agency capacity. These have been adhered to by Colombia and Uruguay. But Latin American governments ought as well to reach out to their Northern Hemispheric counterparts, Canada and Greenland, which involves Denmark. It has become urgent to concentrate diplomatic efforts in direction of an inter-hemispheric, broad diplomatic coordination inspired upon common political and economic interests. Thinking and working together to define norms and regulations regarding access to rare strategic materials, climate change & energy transition, and humanitarian actions could certainly be a good start. These issues are not relevant to the Trump administration. However, world order disruption and trashing international law principles cannot be the only message coming from the Western Hemisphere. Even more so, since it would be ludicrous to consider this area a possession of one single country.
About the Author
Monica Hirst holds a PHD on Strategic Studies (Universidade Federal do Rio Grand do Sul). She is Brazilian-US scholar based in Rio de Janeiro who has worked as an IR professor in different South American and US universities and has done extensive academic research on regional security, Latin America foreign policies and regional cooperation. Professor Hirst has been an independent consultant for the UNDP, the Ford Foundation, the Andean Development Corporation, NOREF and the Foreign Ministries of Argentina, Colombia and Brazil. Presently she is a co-coordinator of the CONLAT (Latin American Conversatorium) at the IESP-State University of Rio de Janeiro and a frequent collaborator of the Frederich Ebert Stiftung publication Nueva Sociedad.